BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE

                                                                 Dated this the 31^st of January 2011

PRESENT

                                                        SMT. ASHA SHETTY           :   PRESIDENT                

   SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI       :   MEMBER

   SRI. ARUN KUMAR.K         :   MEMBER

COMPLAINT NO.193/2010

(Admitted on 17.7.2010)

     Mr.Sridhara Narasimha Bhat,

So Narasimha Ramakrishna Bhat,

Lecturer, Department of Sanskrit

Aged about 40 years,

S.D.M. College,

Ujire 574 240.                              …….. COMPLAINANT

(Advocate for Complainant: Sri. Deenanath Shetty)

          VERSUS

1. The Deputy Secretary,

National Education Testing

South Campus, University of Delhi,

Berito Juarez Road,

New Delhi 110 021.

(Opposite Party No.1: Exparte)

2. Chairman & Co-ordinator,

U.G.C.JRF Test,

Mangalore University,

Mangalagangothri,

Mangalore-574 199.                        ….. OPPOSITE PARTIES

(Advocate for Opposite Party No.2: Sri.K.S.Bhat)

ORDER DELIVERED BY PRESIDENT SMT. ASHA SHETTY:

This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service as against the Opposite Parties claiming certain reliefs. 

The brief facts of the case are as under:

The Complainant submits that, he had appeared for the University Grants Commission (herein after called ‘UGC’) NET Test held by the Opposite Party on 19.12.1994 and he has allotted a roll No.K 525272 in the subject of Astrology.  It is stated that, the Opposite Party is a University engaged in the promotion of educational activities and also had invited the eligible candidates to prefer requisite applications to undergo examination prescribed by the UGC.

It is stated that, the Opposite Party No.1 conducted National Eligibility Test (NET) for Junior Research Fellowship and Lectureship.  The Complainant had appeared for UGC Net Test held by the Opposite Party No.1 held on 19.12.1994 in the campus of Opposite Party No.2.  The Complainant received a communication dated 01.12.1995 stating that, the Complainant was qualified in the aforesaid examination conducted by the UGC and he has declared as being eligible for lectureship and the qualification certificate.  Further it is stated that, Opposite Party No.2 issued  certificate to the Complainant stating that, he is eligible for lectureship and he had come out in flying colours in the examination conducted by the Opposite Party as per the results declared by the UGC through their communication dated 20.05.1995.  It is stated that, as per the communication dated 26.06.1995 the Opposite Party No.1 had requested the Complainant to send the attested photocopy and his mark sheet.  The Complainant as per his covering letter dated 15.09.2003 sent duly attested affidavit, provisional certificate and self-addressed envelope cover had requested the Opposite Party No.1 to send the qualification certificate but the Opposite Party No.1 has failed to issue the qualification certificate to the Complainant for having qualified in the aforesaid examination as was conducted on 19.12.1994.  In that connection, Complainant issued a legal notice dated 07.02.2005 but the Opposite Parties failed to issue the same.  Hence, the above complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Forum to the Opposite Party No.1 to issue the qualification certificate and also claimed Rs.52,000/- as compensation and cost of the proceedings.

2.       Version notice served to the Opposite Parties by RPAD. Opposite Party No.1 despite of serving notice neither appeared nor contested the case till this date.  Hence, we have proceeded exparte as against the Opposite Party No.1.  The acknowledgement placed before the FORA marked as court document No.1.

          Opposite Party No.2 appeared through their counsel filed version, stated that, National Eligibility Test (NET) for Junior Research Fellowship and Lectureship is a program conducted by the UGC.   Opposite Party No.2 university was selected by UGC as one of the centers for holding the said test.  UGC also appointed one of the Professors of the Opposite Party No.2 University as Co-ordinator.  The function and responsibility of issuing the certificate of NET is of the UGC and stated that there is no deficiency and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.       In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:

1. Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?

2. Whether the Complainant proves that Opposite Parties committed deficiency in service?

3. If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?

4. What order?

4.       In support of the complaint, the Complainant – Mr.Sridhara Narasimha Bhat (CW1) filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and got marked Ex C1 to C13 and also produced some citations.

          We have considered the materials that was placed before this Forum by the Complainant and answer the points are as follows:                    

                             Point No.(i) : Negative.

Point No.(ii) to (iv): As per the final order.

REASONS

5.       POINT NO. (i) to (iv):

          It is a case, wherein, the Complainant sworn to the fact that, he had appeared for University Grant Commission (herein after called ‘UGC’) NET TEST i.e., National Eligibility Test for Junior Research Fellowship and Lectureship conducted by the UGC on 19.12.1994 in the campus of Opposite Party No.2 University.  The Complainant appeared for the examination but not received the certificate from the Opposite Party No.2 despite of receiving communication dated 01.12.1995.  Opposite Party No.2 also issued a certificate dated 20.05.1995.  It is stated that, on 26.06.1995 the Opposite Party No.1 requested the Complainant to send an attested photocopy of the marks sheet, provisional certificate of qualifying the post graduate exams from the University along with the self-addressed envelope cover.  The same has been sent to the Opposite Party as per his covering letter dated 15.09.2003 (as per Ex C4) but the Opposite Party not sent the qualification certificate to the Complainant for having qualified in the aforesaid exams, hence the Complainant came up with this complaint.

It is a settled position of law that, issuing certificate does not come within the jurisdiction dyks of Consumer Protection Act.  Issuance of certificate is routine matter for School or College or Universities and receipt of fees or any other documents is not for rendering service.  Consumer Forum cannot issue any such direction as it is not a subject matter of consumerism. 

In the instant case, first of all the complaint is barred by limitation as the Opposite Parties not complied the requirements of the Complainant when he sent a covering letter dated 15.09.2003 along with required documents till this date.  The cause of action starts from the date when he sent a covering letter dated 15.09.2003 to the Opposite Parties to issue a qualifying certificate.  But the above complaint came to be filed before this Forum on 08.07.2010 i.e., after elapse of several years.  Hence the complaint is barred by limitation.

 Further as we discussed herein above, the subject matter involved in this case is not a consumer dispute, hence the complaint deserves to be dismissed.  No order as to costs. 

6.       In the result, we pass the following:                                  

ORDER

The complaint is dismissed.  No order as to costs.   

The copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and therefore the file be consigned to record.

(Page No.1 to 7 dictated to the Stenographer typed by her, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 31^st day of January 2011.)

    PRESIDENT                    MEMBER                         MEMBER

ANNEXURE

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:

CW1 – Mr.Sridhara Narasimha Bhat – Complainant.

Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant:

Ex C1 – 01.12.1995: Letter of the Opposite Party No.1 to the Complainant.

Ex C2 –  20.05.1995: Copy of Certificate given by the Opposite Party No.2.

Ex C3 – 26.6.1995: Letter of the Opposite Party No.1 to the Complainant.

Ex C4 – 15.9.2003: Copy of Letter  written by the Complainant to Opposite Party No.1 along with affidavit.

Ex C5 -                : Postal receipt.

Ex C6 -                : Postal acknowledgement.

Ex C7 – 07.02.2005: Legal notice sent to the Opposite Party No.1 on behalf of the Complainant.

Ex C8 – 29.04.2005: Legal notice issued to the Opposite Party No.1 on behalf of the Complainant.

Ex C9 -                  : Postal acknowledgement.

Ex C10 -                : Postal receipt.

Ex C11 – 03.05.2010: Lawyer’s notice issued to the Opposite Party No.1 on behalf of the Complainant.

Ex C12 -                : Postal acknowledgement.

Ex C13 -                : Postal receipt.

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:

• Nil -

Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Parties:

• Nil -

Dated:31.01.2011                                      PRESIDENT